Tela Pty Ltd v Ampol Ltd [1986] FCA 497

Tela Pty Ltd v Ampol Ltd [1986] FCA 497

Tela's claim under Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52 failed because Tela was indebted to Ampol when Mr Watson spoke to Mr Walden, so it was not misleading to imply that Tela owed Ampol money and was unable or unwilling to pay; the separate statement that Tela was on bank cheque was true, and the false explanation that this resulted from a disputed account was more favourable to Tela than the truth and was not shown to have adversely influenced Mr Walden. On the cross-claim, Tela was obliged to pay according to the rebate fixed by Ampol's authorised officer and recorded on Mr Dixon's card, not according to unauthorised invoice departures, so Ampol was entitled to judgment for the amount...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.52 With Respondent's Cross Claim for Debt / Final Judgment After Liability Was Determined Before Any Hearing on Damages
Outcome
The application was dismissed; Ampol obtained judgment on the cross-claim for $8,170.91; Tela was ordered to pay one half of Ampol's costs.
Legal Topics
['alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct as to Credit Worthiness' 'meaning of Credit Problem' 'disputed Customer Account and Rebates' 'cross Claim for Unpaid Petrol Supplies' 'costs Discretion']
['trade Practices' 'contract' 'debt Recovery' 'costs'] ['alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct as to Credit Worthiness' 'meaning of Credit Problem' 'disputed Customer Account and Rebates' 'cross Claim for Unpaid Petrol Supplies' 'costs Discretion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.52 With Respondent's Cross Claim for Debt / Final Judgment After Liability Was Determined Before Any Hearing on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements by Ampol's agent to a petrol wholesaler that there was a credit problem, that Tela was on bank cheque, and that this was a result of a disputed account were misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52." 'Whether Tela was in fact indebted to Ampol when the statements were made.' "Whether Tela was liable on Ampol's cross-claim for amounts calculated by reference to the rebate shown on Ampol's rebate card rather than the amounts shown on invoices." 'Whether the successful respondent should be deprived of part of its costs because its confusing and inaccurate accounts contributed to the dispute.']

Ratio Decidendi

Tela's claim under Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52 failed because Tela was indebted to Ampol when Mr Watson spoke to Mr Walden, so it was not misleading to imply that Tela owed Ampol money and was unable or unwilling to pay; the separate statement that Tela was on bank cheque was true, and the false explanation that this resulted from a disputed account was more favourable to Tela than the truth and was not shown to have adversely influenced Mr Walden. On the cross-claim, Tela was obliged to pay according to the rebate fixed by Ampol's authorised officer and recorded on Mr Dixon's card, not according to unauthorised invoice departures, so Ampol was entitled to judgment for the amount...

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed; Ampol obtained judgment on the cross-claim for $8,170.91; Tela was ordered to pay one half of Ampol's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Application be dismissed.' 'In the Cross-Claim, judgment be entered in favour of the Cross-Claimant, Ampol Limited, against the Cross-Respondent, Tela Pty Limited, in the sum of eight thousand one hundred and seventy dollars ninety one cents ($8,170.91).' 'The applicant pay to the respondent one half of its...